Eyes have ears: Indexing the orienting response to sound using pupillometry

Marois, Alexandre; Labonté, Katherine; Parent, Mark; Vachon, François

doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.09.016

Cited by 45 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although past studies have 514 reported similar trends, they were using different materials and test designs, making it 515 hard to demonstrate clearly the impact of additional memory task on listening effort in 516 both magnitude and dynamics. For instance, within one speech perception task, pupil 517 diameter gradually decreased with increasing trial numbers, due to task/stimuli 518 habituation [17,[38][39][40]. However, when listeners needed to remember the digits or 519 pseudo-words presented auditorily, pupil diameter increased progressively, until the 520 memory span was exceeded [16,24,26,71].…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This allows pupillary 38 response to show trial-by-trial and within-trial variation in listening effort, which can 39 reveal the underlying cognitive processing and allocation policy that are hardly 40 measurable via behavioural outcomes. For instance, pupil size typically decreases with 41 April 29, 2020 3/41 increasing trial/block numbers within one condition, suggesting fatigue or habituation 42 with similar stimuli and task [17,[38][39][40]; it also varies with the level of engagement that 43 changes from one trial to the next [41].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Zhang

Lehmann

Deroche

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has demonstrated that pupillometry is a robust measure for quantifying listening effort. However, pupillary responses in listening situations where multiple cognitive functions are engaged and sustained over a period of time remain hard to interpret. This limits our conceptualisation and understanding of listening effort in realistic situations, because rarely in everyday life are people challenged by one task at a time. Therefore, the purpose of this experiment was to reveal the dynamics of listening effort in a sustained listening condition using a word repeat and recall task.Words were presented in quiet and speech-shaped noise at different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Participants were presented with lists of 10 words, and required to repeat each word after its presentation. At the end of the list, participants either recalled as many words as possible or moved on to the next list. Simultaneously, their pupil dilation was recorded throughout the whole experiment.When only word repeating was required, peak pupil dilation (PPD) was bigger in 0dB versus other conditions; whereas when recall was required, PPD showed no difference among SNR levels and PPD in 0dB was smaller than repeat-only condition.April 29, 2020 1/41Baseline pupil diameter and PPD followed different growth patterns across the 10 serial positions in conditions requiring recall: baseline pupil diameter built up progressively and plateaued in the later positions (but shot up at the onset of recall, i.e. the end of the list); PPD decreased at a pace quicker than in repeat-only condition.The current findings concur with the recent literature in showing that additional cognitive load during a speech intelligibility task could disturb the well-established relation between pupillary response and listening effort. Both the magnitude and temporal pattern of task-evoked pupillary response differ greatly in complex listening conditions, urging for more listening effort studies in complex and realistic listening situations.Introduction 1 Effortless as it seems, everyday communication is cognitively demanding. Degraded 2 speech input induced by adverse listening conditions (e.g., background noise, 3 reverberation etc.) and peripheral hearing loss introduces mismatch between perceived 4 acoustic signals and their canonical forms [1][2][3]. Resolving this mismatch demands more 5 resources from the finite pool of cognitive resources, leading to fewer resources for other 6 cognitive tasks and eventually overload [4,5]. Populations facing long-term auditory 7 challenges are specifically at risk. For instance, people with hearing impairment and 8 particularly those using cochlear implants (CI) often experience high and sustained 9 effort, even when speech recognition performance is similar [6-10]. CI listeners have to 10 engage and deploy more cognitive resources to achieve a satisfactory level of speech 11 communication due to electric hearing. Such elevated and sustained listening effort is 12 associated with detrimental psychosocial consequence...

show abstract

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Zhang

Lehmann

Deroche

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead of relying on ERPs, the present study used the pupillary dilation response (PDR) to index the sound-evoked attentional response. By now there is convincing evidence that the PDR-a phasic (rapid) dilation of the pupil diametercan be used as a proxy for auditory attentional capture (Liao, Yoneya, Kidani, Kashino, & Furukawa, 2016;Marois, Labonté, Parent, & Vachon, 2018;Nieuwenhuis, De Geus, & Aston-Jones, 2011;Wang & Munoz, 2015;Wetzel, Buttelmann, Schieler, & Widmann, 2016). Notwithstanding the pupil sensitivity to environmental visual factors (e.g., Tryon, 1975), the PDR can also serve such a purpose while visual serial recall is being executed despite the systematic variations in the pupillometric signal attributable to focal changes in luminance produced by the appearance and disappearance of the visual stimuli (cf.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Is auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds underpinned by the same mechanism? Evidence from pupillometry

Marois

Marsh

Vachon

2019

Biological Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mere presence of task-irrelevant auditory stimuli is known to interfere with cognitive functioning. Disruption can be caused by changing auditory distractors (the changing-state effect) or by a sound that deviates from the auditory background (the deviation effect). The unitary account of auditory distraction explains both phenomena in terms of attentional capture whereas the duplex-mechanism account posits that they reflect two fundamentally different forms of distraction in which only the deviation effect is caused by attentional capture. To test these predictions, we exploited a physiological index of attention orienting: the pupillary dilation response (PDR). Participants performed visual serial recall while ignoring sequences of spoken letters. These sequences either comprised repeated or changing letters, and one letter could sometimes be replaced by pink noise (the deviant). Recall was poorer in both changing-state and deviant trials. Interestingly, the PDR was elicited by deviant sounds but not changing-state sounds. This physiological dissociation of the changing-state and the deviation effects suggests they are subtended by distinct mechanisms thereby procuring support for the duplex-mechanism account over the unitary account.

show abstract

“…Attention related to the orienting reflex, e.g. associated with sudden noise or a bright stimulus, also elicits pupillary dilatation [55][56][57][58] . Conversely, smaller pupil sizes are seen with mind-wandering and introspection, and decreasing pupillary diameters reflect distraction and poor task performance [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] .…”

Section: Pupillary Dilatation: Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #2 of "Cortical modulation of pupillary function: systematic review (v0.1)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The pupillary light reflex is the main mechanism that regulates the pupillary diameter; it is controlled by the autonomic system and mediated by subcortical pathways. In addition, cognitive and emotional processes influence pupillary function due to input from cortical innervation, but the exact circuits remain poorly understood. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the mechanisms behind pupillary changes associated with cognitive efforts and processing of emotions and to investigate the cerebral areas involved in cortical modulation of the pupillary light reflex. Methodology. We searched multiple databases until November 2018 for studies on cortical modulation of pupillary function in humans and non-human primates. Of 8809 papers screened, 258 studies were included. Results. Most investigators focused on pupillary dilatation and/or constriction as an index of cognitive and emotional processing, evaluating how changes in pupillary diameter reflect levels of attention and arousal. Only few tried to correlate specific cerebral areas to pupillary changes, using either cortical activation models (employing micro-stimulation of cortical structures in non-human primates) or cortical lesion models (e.g. investigating patients with stroke and damage to salient cortical and/or subcortical areas). Results suggest involvement of several cortical regions, including the insular cortex (Brodmann areas 13 and 16), the frontal eye field (Brodmann area 8) and the prefrontal cortex (Brodmann areas 11 and 25), and of subcortical structures such as the locus coeruleus and the superior colliculus. Conclusions. Pupillary dilatation occurs with many kinds of mental or emotional processes, following sympathetic activation or parasympathetic inhibition. Conversely, pupillary constriction may occur with anticipation of a bright stimulus (even in its absence) and relies on a parasympathetic activation. All these reactions are controlled by subcortical and cortical structures that are directly or indirectly connected to the brainstem pupillary innervation system.

show abstract

Eyes have ears: Indexing the orienting response to sound using pupillometry

Cited by 45 publications

References 72 publications

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Disentangling listening effort and memory load beyond behavioural evidence: Pupillary response to listening effort during a concurrent memory task

Is auditory distraction by changing-state and deviant sounds underpinned by the same mechanism? Evidence from pupillometry

Peer Review #2 of "Cortical modulation of pupillary function: systematic review (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About